Think it looks OK. Suited ace is OK against OMCs because the ace can be good and they'll generally let you know when it is. Suited connectors are awful against them. Getting sandwiched on the flop like that was unfortunate, but I think you have to call in both spots. Turn sort of closeish but you can't really call, your aces and fives might be dirty.

What do you think of just raising the donk lead to commit ourselves vs splashy BB (and likely barreling all-in OTT), and maybe get OMC off AQ/AJ/88-TT, etc? Being in the middle is terrible here.

No thanks. You'll end up with your stack in at bad equity too often. OMC is folding 88-TT anyway, also it doesn't matter if you get him to fold if BB stacks off against you. Like your question here is "should I try to simultaneously bluff both a calling station who has shown interest in the pot and a nit whose range is hit hard by this flop".

Being sandwiched only matters if the OMC raises, which will be relatively rare, and even then it's not like its a disaster.

Fair enough, thanks.

I often raise donk leads when I’ve missed the flop as a bluff against a stabbing, weak value bet from a fish and it’s definitely a winning play. But for the same reason, when we have an overpair we want them to keep betting.

Here is different again because the donk has already been raised. I can fold here and flat here depending on my read on the raiser

In a $5 blind game, are you guys generally calling with AQ, either IP or OOP, against a 3-bet from a tight reg? Ran into this spot a couple times last session and wasn't sure what to do.

Preflop for me is all about not giving good IO for speculative hands since our 3bet will put us in a spot where we'll likely have to stack off postflop. I like giving about poorish 8:1 IO in this spot (I'm conservative like that), which means my 3bet will be in the neighbourhood of $55. Our 3bet offered him IO of about 12:1, which is still kinda poorish, but not as poor as I'd like.

I don't hate the idea of checking this type of flop, although with an SPR of 3 we could just PSB it for value to setup a turn shove.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I used to be fine open limping this hand in EP at my passive preflop / payoffy postflop tables of the past. Both of those have changed over the years (table is much more aggro preflop and much less payoffy postflop), so I now fold Axs (and other speculative hands) unless I'm in LP.

With the fish in the hand (who we have position on) and for this decent price, I'm ok with the call of the raise although it's still marginal at best.

This is one of the problems with being OOP. Obviously we have the IO to call the fish bet, but this flop has smacked the OMC in the face a lot and we don't know if we should really continue. I also sigh call the donk and hope OMC doesn't raise. Looks like we're getting 3:1 to call the reraise. OMC will likely never be able to fold even if the flush comes in since he'll only have $120 left in a big pot. Kinda doubt our Ace outs are any good (is he really doing this with QQ?). It's possible our 7c is no good, and we really need 5:1 (which we're barely getting plus he can redraw). Plus maybe sometimes OMC does make a hero fold. It's pretty marginal, and more likely a fold overall, imo.

Turn is obvious, imo.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Cold call or after we have raise?ld?

‘Tight’ isn’t good enough a description to really work with because there are clearly a load of factors from our image, their tendencies and all sorts of history to act on.

Default answer against a ‘tight’ 3 bet would be no but I’ve 4 bet it sometimes and might call sometimes too but not often

I open and get 3x'd. I assume a tight range being TT+, AQ+, AJs. Even with AQ I feel like you run into RIO a decent amount against that range, esp on Q-high flops.

What situations are you 4-betting it?

What do you think about this 1/2 hand:

Effective stacks 250.

Hero raises to 10 in EP with AJs, 5 callers including what appears to be a maniac in the SB, but we're less than an hour into the game.

Flop comes A-8-8r, gets checked around.

Turn comes a 7 and also makes a flush draw possible. Checks to Hero who bets 30, and things get interesting:

One call in LP, then SB check-raises to 80.

Hero folds, LP folds.

I'm pretty confident in my fold, especially with another player behind me. But the fact that SB goes on to become very hyper-aggressive throughout the night makes me have a twinge of doubt about this hand.

Any thoughts?

Very clear fold. The raise is sized to be called and he's not going to try a bluff after the LP call, as that guy could easily be trapping. Think the rest of the hand is well played.

Yea I think so too the more I mull this over. I really wouldn't have thought so much about this hand except that this villain turns out to be an obvious maniac who was just betting and raising all night.

Maniacs still hit hands though, and with so many players to this flop and this sized raise with 3 players, I'll give him credit for holding the 8.

Thanks.

Offsuit it’s a pretty clear fold for me, suited it depends on stack depth, my image, position, and his post flop skill.

I think this answer's like 6 years late but it was the first one I saw on this thread and got me thinking about it, so I'll just give my answer, even if only for me.

I like reraising here and putting them to the test. The button you don't really have to worry about as he could be 1/3 potting all kinds of crap. The PFR minish check-raise is definitely a weird line with any cards, but I think low stakes players will either do this with a hand like QQ to keep YOU from continuing in the pot cheaply since the button didn't bet very big, or a hand like AK/KQ that just decided to take a weird line. When I encounter min raises in low stakes live games, a lot of the time I find they have TP good kicker. I don't think he's doing this with the nut FD.

So raise it up and put him to a decision for his stack with 42% equity against top pair. Worst case he stacks off, you get it in fine, and you either bust him (and potentially tilt him), or show the table that you can bluff raise. And next time you have a set here, you get paid off.

So I was playing $2/5 today. The pot got limped 6-way and I had 66. The flop came J63

Are you guys betting out on this flop?? I was 4th to act and the first 3 checked to me.

I did, and two very loose players called me, one ahead and one behind. The turn bricked, I bet again, and both players called once more. Finally the river bricked, first guy checked, I checked, and last to act bet 2/3 pot, which was actually a sizable bet at this point. Anyway I called since he'd been pretty loose and aggressive previously and he showed me K2 *Doh*

How do I play this better next time? Did I get unlucky or this board just too dangerous to build a pot on 6-way? How do you play the river?

It's possible you could fold the river, it's hard to say depending on exactly how loose aggressive this guy is. Calling can't be far wrong. The rest of the hand is good. Against standard opponents, I'd be a bit worried about being called in two spots on the flop, but against loose players it's fine and you just keep betting on the turn.

I'd lead flop around a PSB. In limped pots, I feel anything that calls 1/2 or 3/4 will call slightly over pot. OTT, I'd probably continue firing ~2/3 pot for both for value and equity protection. As played, I think we gotta call it off. Last guy to act firing out... could certainly have a hand he's turning into a bluff.

General seat selection question. If forced to choose, would you rather . . . .

A) Have a sticky/action player directly to your right (who let's say straddles OTB often)?

B) Have two passive/ABC players directly on your left (who let's say are not short-stacked)?

This is somewhat oversimplified, because other factors/dynamics may influence the desirability of either/or, but I'm curious how people generally approach/think about this. Thanks.

I think A. I mean, if I have my choice of seats, I think my goal here is to be in position on the action player (or at the very least not OOP to him). Having ABC guys to our left is definitely a good thing especially as all stacks start getting big, but it's probably not a bigger priority than not being OOP to the action guy.

GimoG

whales gon' whale, so give me the nitty, non-adjusting guys to my left as a top priority.

Those who are there to donate will do so and I'll pick up my fair share regardless of position. But I want to knock the nitty guys out by widening my range to gain position on the whales.

For me it's more a matter of avoiding difficult spots. The action guy is capable of putting me in them, so I simply don't want to be OOP to him, which trumps the other factors.

GimoG

Absolutely a valid consideration but just because we aren't to his direct left doesn't mean were to his direct right. In fact in the example were at least 3 to his right if hes still at the table.

Yeah, it's a weirdly worded question, imo. I mean, I don't necessarily have to be sitting to his immediate left, but at the same time he can't be within a few seats of me to my left. If there was a seat open to his direct left and also a seat open across the table from him with the 2 ABC guys to our direct left, I'd probably take the latter seat. But not knowing whether that choice is available, I'll take the seat to his direct left.

But my whole poker strategy is built around avoiding difficult spots, so it's not a surprise that this is my take on things.

GcluelesshypotheticalnoobG

How hard is it to play against an action player/whale? Make a hand, call down, print money.

I'd rather knock the nitty guys out and get it as close to heads-up against the action player as possible. Best way to do that is to have them to my left.